5 ms·
That's a terrible argument isn't it? There's a finite number of musical notes, a finite structure to them and a finite number of effects. We're guaranteed to en
by nicholassmith 7y ago
That's a terrible argument isn't it? There's a finite number of musical notes, a finite structure to them and a finite number of effects. We're guaranteed to end up with doppelgänger choruses and melodies sooner rather than later.
- patrickthebold 7y agoI hear what you are saying but 'finite' isn't that restrictive. There are some pretty big numbers that are still finite.
- wahern 7y ago> We're guaranteed to end up with doppelgänger choruses and melodies sooner rather than later. Technically that's fine. Copyright only protects originality, not novelty as with patents. Coincidentally creating the same melody as someone else doesn't violate their copyright. If they sued they'd have to prove that it wasn't coincidental with evidence that you heard the original melody, a prerequisite for proving that your melody was derivative. That's the theory. In practice the first person to publish the melody often wins, especially if their version was popular--e.g. a radio hit, which by itself provides circumstantial evidence that you had heard it.
- champagneben 7y agoWow - never knew that!
- skrtskrt 7y agoTechnically infinite, there's just finite number of notes and intervals that are generally considered pleasing to the human year (and perceptible by the human ear for that matter).
- mhh__ 7y agoYou can construct finite sets of melodies but when you start to consider rhythm (Loads of pop songs use basic polyrhythms!) and more exotic intervals it's way way bigger than you might imagine. This also completely ignores there is not a finite number of notes - ever heard someone play a theremin? - and even you restrict yourself to finite tuning systems, there are many to choose from. These can also be used in a pop context - if extremely rarely.